'Meaning is Use' and Wittgenstein's Treatment of Philosophical Problems
Development: The use of the IS framework
Transcript of Development: The use of the IS framework
G L O B E L I C S W O R K I N G P A P E R S E R I E ST H E G L O B A L N E T W O R K F O R E C O N O M I C S O F L E A R N I N G ,
I N N O VAT I O N , A N D C O M P E T E N C E B U I L D I N G S Y S T E M
Innovation Systems and Development: The use of the IS framework along the first ten years of the Globelics conference
José Eduardo Cassiolato, Marcelo Pessoa de Matos, Helena Lastres and Israel Marcellino
Working Paper
No. 2012-01
ISBN: 978-87-92923-06-2
www.globelics.org
GLOBELICS
Innovation Systems and Development: The use of the IS framework along the first ten years of the Globelics
conference
José Eduardo Cassiolato*, Marcelo Pessoa de Matos,
Helena Lastres and
Israel MarcellinoRedeSist-IE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Abstract
This paper analyzes how the innovation system (IS) framework has been used for addressing
development issues. It is based on a review of 1461 papers from the last nine Globelics conferences.
We found a rich set of contributions focusing on different dimensions of innovation systems and a
growing importance of research lines that link a systemic perspective with issues that are relevant
for national and local social-economic development processes that are sustainable and inclusive.
There is a great potential for deepening some research lines, especially those in connection with the
rich development thinking traditions that evolved in less developed countries, helping to enrich the
IS framework and policy agenda.
Key Words:Innovation Systems, Sustainable Development, Globelics conference papers
4
INTRODUCTION
The core of Globelics is the application of the concept of 'Learning, Innovation, and
Competence Building System' (LICS) as an analytical framework to the understanding of
development issues. As pointed out by Bengt Aake Lundvall and Luc Soete in a background
paper about Globelics, the idea is to bring together relevant information about what is going on
in different parts of the globe and to share experiences worldwide regarding methodological
issues, analytical results and policy experience about the utilization of the innovation systems
framework. In a paper that build upon the contributions to the First Globelics Workshop and
the Seminar on Innovation Systems at Aalborg University during 4-6 November 2002 - where
Globelics was launched - we discuss the reasons for establishing and participating in such a
global research network. (LASTRES; CASSIOLATO, 2002).
In the afore mentioned paper we suggested themes to which Globelics could make important
contribution. Among them we could point out: mapping efforts for, identifying, measuring and
analyzing processes of creation, acquisition, use and diffusion of knowledge; development of
practical tools and models to analyze the dynamics of LICS; assessment of the role of nation
states in promoting development and systems of innovation in different historical and
geopolitical contexts; globalization, financiarization of the economy and the interconnected
environmental and production-financial crises that signal a transition to a techno-economic
paradigm based on a lower exploitation of finite natural resources.
This paper takes up the discussion on the need and usefulness of the concept of system of
innovation for addressing development issues and focuses on the contributions from the
Globelics community for the advance of this field of endeavor. The 1461 paper from the past
nine annual conferences constitute a representative sample. We take the opportunity given by
the 10th Globelics seminar to make such an attempt.
The first section addresses the Innovation System framework and its connection to the
development literature. The second section offers an outline of the procedurals for classifying
and organizing the papers. The third section discusses the aggregate results of this
classification. The forth section discusses the results in respect to specific topics. The
concluding section elaborates on potential steps ahead in the connection between the IS
framework and development debate and policy.
5
1. LINKS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS
During the past 25 years a substantial literature on Innovation Systems (IS) has evolved. Going
beyond linear innovation models, the IS framework put emphasis on the interactive character
of innovation, on the importance of (and complementarities between) incremental and radical,
technical and organizational innovations and their different and simultaneous sources, and on
the re-conceptualization of firms, as organization embedded within specific socio-economic-
political environments that reflect particular historical and cultural trajectories (FREEMAN,
1987; LUNDVALL, 1985).
The systems of innovation approach has been used, sometimes without recognition, from two
different perspectives. In opposition to a narrow perspective (basically a follow up to earlier
analyses of national science and technology structures and policies), the broad perspective
takes into account the broad set of institutions affecting the innovation system (such as macro-
economic implicit policies for innovation and the financial system) and shaping competence
building in the economy (such as education, training, industrial relations and labor market
dynamics) (FREEMAN 1982, 1987; LUNDVALL 1985).
As stressed by several authors (FREEMAN 1982, JOHNSON et al. 2003, LUNDVALL 2007,
CASSIOLATO and LASTRES 2005), innovation theory in general and the Innovation System
literature in particular benefited significantly from the post-war development debate, besides
main former contributions on “National System of Production”, mental (intellectual) capital
and the role of institutions and policies (LIST 1841).
Particularly important were the insights of the structuralist tradition on the long-term
deterioration of terms of trade for primary products and of the distribution of gains between
developed and developing countries and the emphasis on structural transformation as a path for
development (PREBISCH 1949; SINGER 1950, MYRDAL 1958, HIRSCHMAN 1958;
FURTADO 1961). Works of Chris Freeman and Hans Singer combined the discussions on
poverty, self-reliance and the role of science and technology (SINGER et al., 1970). Inspired
by these ideas an important literature about the need to address paradigmatic changes and the
problems and options deriving from the diffusion of the information technologies led to a
series of interconnected work from the innovation perspective by authors such as Herrera
(1975) and Perez (1983), as well as how firms in the less developed world acquire and develop
technological capabilities unfolded during the 1970s and 1980s (KATZ, 1985).
6
The emphasis put by the evolutionary literature on the role of innovation as an engine of
growth and the long-run cyclical character of technical change converged with the perspectives
on structural transformation and development. Both offer an alternative to simplistic
explanations about underdevelopment, adopting a holistic and historically contextualized view.
This helps to explain why the IS framework revealed to be such a fruitful ground for discussing
the specific challenges and opportunities of development. Since this framework proposes a
comprehensive understanding of the processes by which societies and economies learn and
acquire capabilities both to produce and to innovate it offers substantial contribution to the
development debate.
This paper seeks to provide an overview of how this connection has been worked out within
the Globelics community.
2. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
In order to better understand the contribution of Globelice for the discussion on innovation
systems and development a data base of the papers presented in all Globelics conferences was
set up. The database consists of 1461 regular conference papers presented during the last nine
conferences (from Rio de Janeiro, 2003 until Buenos Aires, 2011). A small set of papers were
not presented in English: Thirteen papers of the Saratov 2007 meeting are available only in
Russian and 17 papers of the Dakar 2009 meeting are available only in French. The data base
used for the analysis consists of pares written in English and French, a total of 1448 papers.
The first step undertaken was the classification of the papers in relation to whether they use the
Innovation System framework for the analysis or not. Three categories were defined:
• Papers that do not use the innovation system framework – (i) papers that do not refer to the
IS framework at all and (ii) papers that only quote innovation systems but do not further
engage in this perspective;
• Papers that make reference to the innovation system framework – papers that: (i) present a
more or less systemic analysis without explicitly adopting the IS framework; (ii) partially
address IS as one of its topics, without taking it as main guideline; (iii) address IS as one
of many elements in theoretical discussions;
• Papers that, in fact, use/focus on the IS framework.
7
The papers that do not use the Innovation System framework were not subject of a detailed
discussion. For the other two cases a second step of characterization was undertaken. This
second step thus encompassed 629 papers and consisted of a classification according to:
• the type of analysis – papers with predominantly (1) theoretical/conceptual, (2)
quantitative or (3) historical/appreciative/comparative analysis;
• the dimensions of innovation systems – papers that focus on one or more of the
following dimensions: supranational; national; subnational/local, sectoral innovation
systems1;
• the specific topic or subject addressed by the paper. Categories were not defined in
advance. They resulted from a free registering of topics and a subsequent aggregation
into 18 groups (each paper may address many different topics).
The next sections elaborate on the results of this effort.
3. EVOLUTION OF THE USE OF THE IS FRAMEWORK
The analysis showed that most Globelics papers presented in the 9 conferences do not use the
Innovation System framework in their analysis (figure 1): 56% did not use the IS framework.
16% only made reference to it and 28% effectively used it or focused on it. Thus, in 629 (44%)
papers the IS perspective is present.
The explanation of the high percentage of papers that do not use the IS framework may be
related to the level of specificity of the subject, such as the analysis of one specific innovation,
of one type of organization (e.g. universities); one type of support mechanism (e.g. venture
capital), a case study, etc. But, it could be argued that although the systemic nature of
innovation is widely accepted to use it as a real analytical framework is a much more complex
endeavor. The existing indicators do not help the understanding of how firms and other
organizations (embedded in a specific context). One could then point out that in fact a
reasonable number of these papers are closer linked to theoretical frameworks that do not
explicitly incorporate the IS framework.
1 The term ‘regional’ was purposely left out because of the possible confusion deriving of its frequent use to address both the dimension of many countries (we opt for supranational) and of a part of a country (we opt for subnational or local).
8
Figure 1 – Share of Globelics papers that make effective use, punctual use or no use of the Innovation System framework
Source: Own elaboration
But the matter is not about explicitly citing this framework but rather about using a systemic
perspective. The second group of papers, those that make some reference to ISs, are good
examples. As explained above, many papers came under this header without explicitly
referring to the ground-setting texts or and the IS framework. But in fact these papers present a
relatively systemic perspective, taking into account the (economic, social, institutional, etc.)
context, a diversified set of organizations and their interaction for production and innovation
purposes.
The only three conferences were the share of papers that either use or refer to the IS framework
accounts for more than 50% were the meetings of Rio de Janeiro 2003 (73%), Pretoria 2005
(56%) and Trivandrum 2006 (54%). The Beijing 2004 and the Dakar 2009 meetings pushed
upwards the average level of papers that do not engage in a systemic analysis while in the other
meetings this percentage is close to the overall average (41% to 46%). This suggests a slight
tendency of increase of the share of papers that do not present a systemic analysis of the
learning, innovation and competence building processes, a fact that could be explained by a
growing inclusion of academic and policy makers of different methodological backgrounds in
the network.
9
Figure 2 – Share of Globelics papers that make effective use, punctual use or no use of the Innovation System framework per event
Source: Own elaboration
The data for the first Globelics conference deserve some specific considerations, as it was not
based on an open call for papers like the others. Participants were invited by the Globelics
board. Necessarily the resulting set of contributions was closely related to what was proposed
to be the main directions of this global network, as proposed in the 2002 Aalborg meeting that
created the network.
Expanding and opening up the network should, in fact, be one of its main goals, in order to
further underline the adjective ‘global’ it already deserves and to incorporate new perspectives
and voices. It is an interesting task how to learn from these increasingly diversified voices and
at the same time stand for what is believed to be a fundamental tool for effectively
understanding the LICS processes and avoiding simplistic conclusions and potentially
misleading policy initiatives.
Another main finding (figure 3) is the strong emphasis on studies with an appreciative,
historical and/or comparative approach (73.3% of the 629 papers that use or refer to the IS
framework). Only 11.3% present essentially theoretical discussions2 and 15.4% focus on
predominantly quantitative analysis – indicators and the use of statistical and econometric
models for testing relations among variables.
2 Most of these theoretical papers focus on the main theoretical foundations of the IS framework. Others propose the creation of new concepts such as ‘knowledge, research and innovation system’, ‘science, technology and innovation systems’, ‘national learning systems’ and ‘Spiral Innovation System’. But, as stressed by Lundvall et al. (2011), the innovation systems is a rather comprehensive and broad term that has been able to cope with different realities and processes. Thus, the need for alternative terms would be questionable.
10
Figure 3 – Analytical approach of Globelics papers – all events and per event¹
All events Per event
Source: Own elaboration ¹ 26 papers were associated to more than one approach
These findings are very interesting, especially when we consider the actual dictum for
scientific production, especially in economics, which suggests that appreciative analysis
without concrete evidence from hard data and econometric models are not truly ‘scientific’. Of
course, most appreciative and empirical analysis relies on some hard data, but they are rather
auxiliary to a contextualized understanding of an object or process. It seems that, most of the
Globelics community has been aware of the limitations and problems of unqualified use of
traditional indicators.
On the other hand, the theoretical contributions are still rather limited. The broadening of the
network was accompanied by a increasing share of empirical and/or quantitative analysis
coming out of LDCs, which is not accompanied by a critical discussion concerning the
theoretical foundations of the IS framework. Articulating a critical appraisal of empirical
findings with the broad set of literature on development could help to further enrich the IS
framework.
Finally, we present the findings related to the use of the IS framework in its different
dimensions – supra-national, national, local, sectoral. The close interconnectedness between
the development of the innovation system concept as such and that of national innovation
systems helps to explain the predominance of the national dimension of innovation systems
(53% of the papers that use or refer to the IS framework).
Other dimensions of IS that receive considerable attention are the subnational/local dimension
(15%) and the sectoral dimension (19%). In the group of ‘other or no restriction’ are those
11
cases where none of the previous dimensions is specified or where other references are used,
such as ‘technological systems’.
Figure 4 – Innovation System dimension of Globelics papers - all events and per event¹
All events Per event
Source: Own elaboration ¹ Many papers were associated to more than one dimension
We underline the importance of considering and understanding social economic and political
processes within the specific territory in which they actually take place. The local territorial
dimension is of particular importance for addressing development issues for two reasons.
First, the experience of many countries showed that aggregate or average indicators (for social
development, income, sectoral/technological performance) hide huge imbalances. The
historical trajectory of many LDCs led to a great heterogeneity of the productive and social
structures along their territories (FURTADO, 1964). In huge countries one can find both
“world class” and very archaic production and innovation systems within the same sector or
technology field3. In general, localities that are least dynamic in economic terms also present
considerable challenges related social development. More generally, every production activity
has to be understood within the specific social, cultural, institutional and natural context, which
is specific for each locality.
In this context, one main challenge of the innovation system framework is to understand how
specific structures evolve, which are the specific challenges and potentialities and how specific
3 Some critics argue that most of these structures do not actually constitute a system, which is in fact a mistaken view of innovation system as an object or a given stage to be reached. It is a rather a framework of analysis. Wherever there is production there will always be some kind of system around it and they vary from the most simple, modest or disjointed to the most complex and articulated (LASTRES; CASSIOLATO, 2005)
12
policy initiatives could foster the learning and innovation processes and induce sustainable
local development. The needs are specific and so must be the initiatives. It is not surprising that
six countries with huge territories and inequalities account for more than 60% of the references
that focus on the local dimension: China (20%), Brazil (17%), Mexico (9%), Russia (8%),
India (6%) and South Africa (4%).
Second, as innovation is an essentially interactive and social process (Freeman 1988) the local
dimension represents the sphere in which most interactive learning processes take place. The
diffusion of tacit knowledge requires a close, personal, interaction among organizations and
people, which must be understood within a specific territory. Many research and policy efforts
have focused on the local dimension and the so called ‘local (or regional) innovation systems’.
Many different conceptual and analytical frameworks, such as industrial districts, clusters and
milieu inovateur have emerged for analyzing activities in the local dimension. Although some
authors suggest these concepts to be equivalent, we claim that the IS framework offers a
broader and more comprehensive tool for understanding links not only amongst production
agents, but also other different kinds of institutions and the territory, stressing the importance
of LICs processes in a specific local context (Lastres; Cassiolato, 2005).
4. DIFFERENT TOPICS AND PERSPECTIVES
The papers were also classified according to the topics. In our analysis (table 1) a total of 1764
issues under 18 main topics were addressed by the 629 papers that used or refer to the IS
framework. The topics can be organized into four broad groups (fifth column of table 1). The
first group refers to the general framework that structures the evolution of innovation systems
(growth, catch-up, development) and the related policies and institutions. We are aware that
these three general concepts mean totally different things but at this stage they can be grouped
together for the sake of understanding general trends. The second group encompasses issues
related to different types of knowledge, interactive learning processes and structures that
enable these interactions. The third group aggregates the topics that address specific
development challenges. The fourth group includes a rather varied set of topics, which count
with a longer and well established research tradition. Not disregarding that they are important
for development, we shed more light in the other groups.
In the following analysis we present a discussion on the three first groups and eventually address the specific topics they encompass.
13
4.1. Development, growth and policies
According to table 1 above, this group receive 40.6% of total references. Below we detail how
each of the three topics within this group fared.
(a) The importance of development in IS research
We start the analysis of the topics with those elements that constitute the main subject of this
paper (Table 2). One striking aspect is the reduced share of studies that consider development
(and growth) as one of its explicit topics. For sure, many studies focusing on specific
innovations or discussing the role of multinational companies’ R&D, for example, may aim at
14
providing some insights for the broader discussion about development. But only in a very small
number of cases (14% of papers that use or refer to the IS framework) development is
explicitly one of the topics.
Once again we can observe the distinct features of the first Globelics conference. In line with
the main reference papers for the creation of this network, development was a far more relevant
topic in this first meeting (26% of papers). But, once conference papers were submitted to open
tender, the share of development as a specific issues decreased to an average level 14% (the
only exception was the Pretoria 2005 meeting).
As expected, development is clearly a more relevant issue for less developed countries.
Especially in those countries that are experiencing substantial changes along the last decade
development and growth became a main topic. In part as an outcome of virtuous evolvements
many papers discuss the determinants of the recent performance of China (addressed by 18
papers focusing on development), India (6), South Korea (5), Taiwan (5) and Malaysia (4)4.
Papers discussing the case of Latin American Countries, such as Brazil (11) and México (5),
focus mostly on the challenges for development and the normative dimension of national and
4 Discussing the transformations of the NISs and the role of policies (Abrol, 2006; Gu and Lundvall, 2007; Gu et al., 2008; Wong and Goh, 2010, 2011; Lundvall and Gu, 2011); the virtuous ‘catch-up’ process in specific industries (Liu 2004, Rasiah et. al. 2007; Joseph 2007; Malerba and Nelson 2007) and the role of regional/local innovation systems and clusters (Wu et al. 2004; Jiang and Wu, 2010).
15
local policy, the potentialities and the mode of insertion in the world economy5. For the case of
studies that focus on Africa, we can highlight those that elaborate on the importance of
strengthening the supranational (pan-African) dimension of innovation systems as a path for
enhancing development in the continent6 and those that discuss the opportunities and threats
related to the exploration of natural resources7.
(b) The role of policy and institutions
The topic ‘Policy and institutions /Governance’ is the most important one both in aggregate
terms and in almost every single conference (addressed by 61% of the papers that use or refer
to the IS framework). This is, of course, closely related to the recognition within the IS
framework that the governments and institutions play central roles.
As argued by Chang (2002) no country became developed by applying a liberal dictum.
Especially when it comes to that kind of strategic long term transformations that influences the
level of learning, competence building and innovation in a country, locality or sector policies
play a pivotal role. A major example can be found in a ground-setting paper for the IS
framework, in which Freeman (1987) analyses the Japanese economic and technological
performance. Thus, 66% of the papers that address the topic of development underline the role
of government as a main driving force for this process.
In the set of papers for the Globelics conferences a variety of circumstances in which policy
plays a major role is represented. Important contributions in the first conference helped to set
the scene for posterior discussions by contextualizing the role of innovation, ISs and S,T&I
policy within the actual international context8. An interesting set of papers also provides a
historical account of the evolution of policies9. Many authors elaborated on the Latin American
structuralist tradition for understanding development in that region and to move forward on a
normative front10. And a broader set of papers presents a long term strategic perspective on the
potential transformation of innovation systems. They comprise essays on long term policy
5 Dutrénit and Vera-Cruz (2003), Arocena and Sutz (2004), Lastres and Cassiolato (2005); Katz (2006); Jover et. al. (2008); Soares and Cassiolato (2008); Matos and Britto (2011). 6 Muchie (2003) and Maharajh (2010) 7 Lorentzen (2005) and Maleki and SiAbdelhadi (2010) 8 Chesnay (2003) and Perez (2003), for example, discussed the threats for development that are related to (financial) globalization and the role of national policies. Reinert and Reinert (2003) elaborated on a historical account of the modern nation state and role of innovations. 9 Maleki A. et all. (2005), Dutrénit G., et all. (2006), Edquist C. (2008). 10 For example, Cassiolato et al. (2005) and Katz (2006).
16
plans, the main rigidities and hurdles that should be addressed in order to enable substantial
transformations11.
A main element with concrete implications for less developed countries, which comes out of
these discussions, relates to the link between micro, meso and macro dimensions. Many studies
emphasize the influence of macroeconomic conditions on microeconomic decisions12. As
particularly pointed out by Latin American and Caribbean authors, characteristic hindering
learning and capacity building in these countries are often associated to the instability and
vulnerability of the macro-economic, political, institutional and financial environments.
Problems such as high external debt and high interest rates are frequent constraints to
technological (and industrial) development. Thus, corroborating older arguments by Herrera
(1971) and Sagasti (1978), ‘implicit’ innovation policies related to macro-economic contexts in
developing countries are perceived to be as important as specific innovation policies.
Many papers that explicitly discuss the role of policy and institutions focus on the potential for
promoting linkages between the science and technology subsystem and other dimensions of the
innovation system. Inspired by a long tradition, many papers discuss policies to promote
university-industry ties and to create or strengthen markets for knowledge and technology.
Others discuss the role of university within society and the promotion of social outcomes13.
Building upon this later topic, a growing set of papers analyzes institutional determinants for
exclusion and policy implications for promoting social inclusion (this is further discussed in
section 4.3).
(c) Catch-up or unique development paths?
Half of the papers that use the catch-up concept engage in a IS analysis from a sectoral
perspective, discussing catch-up strategies for promoting the incorporation of technologies and
building of innovative capacity in specific sectors or industries14, while the other half discuss
catch-up and policies from a national IS perspective15.
There is potential ground for misleading perspectives that deserves to be addressed. In
particular, as pointed out by the Latin American structuralist literature the recognition of
asymmetries in (and the dual character of) the international economic and technological 11 Villaschi (2005), Arocena and Sutz (2007), Kaplan (2008), Gu et al. (2008) and Niosi (2010) 12 Lastres (2003), Baskaran and Muchie (2003) and Abrol (2004). 13 Arocena and Sutz (2002), Jover et al. (2008), Kruss, (2009), Dutrénit et al. (2010) and Joseph and Abraham (2011). 14 Rasiah et al. (2007), Malerba and Nelson (2007), Gu et. al. (2008) and Rho, et. al. (2010). 15 Fagerberg and Srholec (2006), Kriaucioniene (2007) and Saviotti et al. (2010).
17
process of development suggests the uniqueness of development processes which by definition
are not replicable. In fact - and already pointed out by a number of authors, including Friedrich
List, any proposal of a linear process of catch-up, in the sense of an accelerated process of
reproducing similar institutional and productive structures to the leading countries is
misleading.
Underdevelopment cannot be seen as a prior phase of a country in a linear development
process, but a result of global structural and historical elements, complementary to the
existence of developed countries (FURTADO, 1961). This perspective calls out for the
construction of a unique path that allows a country to break with the structural determinants of
underdevelopment. And this path is closely influenced by the specific natural, social, cultural
context and by the productive and institutional set-ups. This means that development cannot be
associated with ideas of Innovation System “creation” 16 or benchmarking, once there is no
linear catch-up path to be followed. This also indicates that it is difficult to assert that there
exist only two kinds of countries, those who possess a System of Innovation and those who
don’t, once every country has different institutions and more or less developed scientific,
technological and productive capabilities in different areas. Hence, we argue that catch-up is
incompatible with the notion of innovation systems within an evolutionary perspective.
The only dimension in which an effective “reduction of the leader’s advantage” is proposed is
in the capacity to acquire, use, transform and create knowledge, applying it for productive
purposes17. The institutional set-up could be adapted and even enriched, but necessarily based
on its specific characteristics, determined by its historical evolution process. Thus, the resulting
institutional, scientific, technological and productive set-up that would allow a country to reach
the leaders, in terms of aggregate performance, would be necessarily specific and unique. The
potential disconnection between some variants of the ‘catch-up’ concept with that of
development is confirmed by the fact that only 26% of the papers that address the former also
engage in a discussion about the later concept.
16 As Djeflat, for example, uses the ‘building’ concept in many of his papers (e.g. 2009 and 2010), he refers to the reasonable process of building upon existing capabilities and structures. This, of course, differs substantially for concepts of ‘creating’ new systems out of the blank paper. 17 This relates to the substantive challenge of ‘borrowing’ and adapting technologies that the technological lead countries and organizations control, through a combination of reverse engineering, licensing, sending scholars abroad, inviting foreign firms and experts and engaging in international scientific collaboration (LUNDVALL, 2007).
18
4.2. Interactive processes and structures for competence building
The second group of topics encompasses many processes and structures that are central in the
LICS approach (Table 3). These topics accounted, in aggregate terms, for the largest number
of references (59.6% of the set of 629 papers addressed these issues).
As regards the specific topics within this group, the most recurrent one refers to the links
enabling interaction among different actors of the innovation system (43% of the papers).
Almost as frequent is the topic of knowledge and learning processes (40%). Also recurrent is
the topic of capabilities, competence building and competitiveness (20%) and
spillovers/technological diffusion and transference (12%). For sure these issues are closely
related. While interactions and networks nurture learning processes, knowledge is acquired by
actors in close interaction. As a result, there is a tendency for this to imply in greater
capabilities and competitiveness. But it is also interesting to observe the varying emphasis
given to each of these specific themes over the different conferences. It is not a surprise that the
concept of ‘social capital’ for instance attracts far less interest nowadays than it did at the time
of the first conferences. Once this concept became increasingly criticized it almost disappeared
in recent conferences.
Some aspects that are directly related to how learning, interaction and competence building
relates to development deserve special attention. The very definition of innovation systems
stresses the complex processes of knowledge generation, diffusion and use and the specific
capabilities each actor. Trying to understand this complex mosaic implies in considering not
19
only the most dynamic and innovative organizations, sectors and technological fields. Then,
many papers focusing on less developed countries and localities underlined the central
importance of understanding learning and innovation efforts of all kinds of organizations, even
if they are far behind the technological frontier. This perception stimulated a broad set of
studies focusing on systems in ‘traditional sectors’, agricultural production, services, many of
which characterized by small scale and outdated organizational formats and technologies18.
From a development perspective not only the knowledge and the innovation processes with far
reaching impacts are relevant. Especially, considering regions with low economic dynamism
and/or centered on traditional activities, any minor transformation of production processes,
organizational aspects, product variety or elements that enable the access to new or broader
markets may have considerable impact. Many times these innovations, which are not envisaged
by the traditional literature and captured by indicators, translate into substantial increase in
capacities of one or many productive agents to produce and compete on a sustainable basis,
generating income and job and enhancing living standards.
Efforts directed to the development and use of methodological tools for empirical
investigations that consider these broad set of elements of novelty effectively as innovations
revealed very fruitful environments for which standard indicators would suggest the
inexistence of innovation processes19. The increasing use of emblematic terms such as
‘grassroots innovations’ and ‘below the radar innovations’ shows that this perspective is being
increasingly recognized and incorporated in the research agenda and maybe, hopefully more in
the future.
Directly related to this discussion is the emphasis on the importance of accumulating
capabilities and knowledge for sustainable development20, in order to overcome what
Fajnzylber (1988) called short-term ‘spurious competitiveness’. For being able to absorb and
effectively use new technologies, substantial learning efforts are necessary. The capacity to
learn and use (having access to the means and opportunities) turns out to be much more
important for inclusion or exclusion than the access to goods and services that incorporate new
technologies, in special ICTs. Overcoming the ‘learning divide’ based on a systemic
18 Examples are studies about agriculture in china (Gu 2004, 2007), salmon farming in Chile (Iizuka 2006), cocoa industry in Nigeria (Adeoti et al. 2008), wine sector in Chile, Italy and South Africa (Cusmano et al. 2008), flower industry in Ethiopia (Iizuka and Gebreeyesus 2010), wooden furniture in Malaysia (Boon-Kwee and Thiruchelvam 2010), tourism in Russia (Odintsova 2007) and cultural activities in Brazil (Matos and Lemos 2005). 19 Lastres (2003), Sutz and Arocena,(2004), Kriaucioniene et al. (2004), Albagli and Maciel (2007), Morceiro et al. (2011). 20 Lundvall (2005), Lastres (2003), and Maleki and SiAbdelhadi (2010)
20
perspective constitutes the fundamental challenge for policy action (AROCENA; SUTZ,
2003). Once more, the effort directed to the creation and use of suited methodological tools for
empirical investigation revealed many formal and informal learning processes that result in
various transformations of technologies, adapting them through minor modifications and
combinations in order to address specific problems and needs (GU, 2003)21. In Lundvall’s
(2007) terms, this implies in considering not only the STI-mode (learning processes related to
the Science, Technology, Innovation chain) but also the DUI-mode (learning by Doing, Using
and Interacting).
These discussions also shed more light on the relevance of knowledge that is not directly
linked to the formal education and S&T system. Important transformations and key elements
for the sustainable use of limited resources often derive from knowledge that is rooted in a
specific territory and that relates to specific cultural habits and practices. It is interesting to
notice in the table above that this topic is becoming more and more relevant. While the topic of
‘traditional knowledge’ or ‘indigenous knowledge’ and its articulation with more formalized
and technological knowledge has not been present in the first conferences, it became recurrent
topic in later meetings22. But certainly it still does not receive all the attention it deserves.
This broader and systemic understanding of knowledge and innovation has clear advantages,
especially in relation to policy implications. One can hardly support something that can’t be
seen. This broad view encourages policy-makers to take into account the opportunities for
learning and innovation in any productive activity (MYTELKA; FARINELLI, 2003).
Additionally, understanding innovation as a context specific and socially determined process
underlines that the acquisition of technology abroad is not a substitute for local efforts. Thus, a
lot of local knowledge is necessary to allow the, selection, buying (or copying), transforming
and internalizing of technologies (Lastres and Cassiolato 2005). The institutional learning
process in many countries is being influenced by these findings, helping to broaden the scope
of S,T&I policy. But there is still a long way ahead.
21 Cassiolato et al.( 2003), Sampath and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka (2007) and Hervas-Oliver (2011) 22 Examples are Muchie’s (2007) and Adeoti’s and Adeoti’s (2010) discussions on the problems of transformation of agriculture in African countries, Scheinberg’s et al. (2009) discussion on the role of university in protecting and creating value from indigenous knowledge and Matos’s (2006) discussion on the role of socially rooted knowledge in cultural activities.
21
4.3. Development challenges: sustainability, social innovation and SMEs
Table 4 presents the share of papers that discuss specific challenges and opportunities for
development from a systemic perspective. Only a small fraction of papers have addressed these
topics. But we find it important to discuss them in detail, once they are central elements for
development thinking and they are becoming increasingly relevant and the last conferences.
The IS framework is very useful for addressing specific challenges posed by
underdevelopment, particularly those connected with a view of development as the expansion
of substantive freedoms (Sen 1999). Issues of sustainability as well as challenges related to
social development necessarily suggest a convergence and interaction of many different actors
with different interests, power positions, and capabilities. These topics have been linked to the
IS thinking both from a broad and from a specific/directed perspective.
On a broad perspective, many authors suggest that the evolution of the ISs as a whole should
be oriented towards their specific development challenges. This may imply in related policy
choices, for example, to the priority given to some technology/knowledge fields (high-tech or
technologies with pervasive impacts) or types of institutions23 and to the creation of ‘world
class’ niches/firms versus aiming at socialized economic impacts. The prevalence of conflicts,
poverty and poor governance in Africa, for example, are pointed out by Muchie et al. (2004) to
23 Andersen (2003), for example, provides an interesting discussion on the rationale of intellectual property rights systems and the related potential social costs.
22
be some of the most urgent global development issue and the most important guiding line for
policy initiatives based on a IS perspective.
On a specific/targeted perspective issues of social development and sustainability have been
studied and targeted in policy action under the headers of ‘social innovation’ and
‘environmental innovations’. As expected almost all papers that deal with these issues focus on
LDCs. It is interesting to note that a great part of the papers (8 out of 36) focus on India, which
relates both to the dimension of the challenge in that country and to the tradition in
development thinking on a broad perspective. Other recent correlated terms are ‘innovation for
the bottom of the pyramid’ and ‘pro poor innovations’24. With respect to the header of
sustainability, we find that most papers focus on specific experiences and technologies aimed
at mitigating environmental impact and on clean production25, and a minority seeks to expand
the concept of sustainability to a social dimension26. It is interesting to find that few papers (4
out of 36) that discuss sustainability also deal with the issue of social innovation. This suggests
that there might be a great potential for future research to build this bridge and to understand
the environmental issue within a broader perspective of (social) development.
The definition of social or environmental innovation is based on the final goals – positive
social and environmental outcomes – and not necessarily by the type of innovation, knowledge
and actors that are involved. This may lead to a perspective that doesn’t articulate the
innovation process and their actors with the beneficiaries of the innovations. Some papers, for
example, discuss the positive impacts of cheaper ICTs solutions for digital inclusion, new
drugs and cheap production of drugs for chronic diseases, etc. These are very important
processes but are not the end of the story.
The effective use of a systemic perspective for analyzing these types of innovations stresses the
importance of close interaction and, many times, protagonism of the social group that may
benefit from the outcomes. Especially considering the goal of promoting sustainable
alternatives for development, the empowerment of the targeted social groups is fundamental27.
In many cases social actors are main protagonists mobilizing ‘external’ knowledge and
solutions according to their needs. This often translates into the organization of production
24 Cholez et al. (2010), Ramachander (2010), Sulaiman (2006) 25 Zao and Wu (2004), Adeoti (2005), Binz (2010), Walz and Eichhammer (2011) and Podcameni and Queiroz (2011) 26 Djeflat (2006), Pulamte (2008), Matos and Britto (2010). 27 Adeoti and Sinh (2009)
23
processes based on principles of solidarity and trust28. Examples relate to the use of techniques
for soil fertilization based on organic material, complementary productive use for disposals,
efficient use of rain water in semi-arid areas, ‘traditional’ medicine, organizational innovations
in preventive health care, etc29.
The characteristics of the production agents – their formal or informal character and their size
– can also be seen as critical issues for promoting socioeconomic development. Thus, issues
like informality, inclusion and exclusion and challenges of small enterprises have been
increasingly addressed by conference papers. The threats and obstacles faced by these
productive agents and their greater integration in the economy, helping them to move away
from a subsistence logic towards one based on sustained competitiveness, is a major challenge
for policy action.
Studies focusing on India, for example, show how IS framework can help to address issues
related to the institutions or norms of social exclusion that are embedded in the current
structural and policy configurations30. The studies about the second economy in South Africa
investigate how formal and informal economies are articulated, the way the institutional and
macroeconomic context may favor or not formalization and the relation of informality with
exclusion31. Studies focusing on Latin America underline the changing pattern of research and
innovation policy focusing on solutions to social marginalization32.
The characteristics of SMEs and the challenges they face are frequently discussed in
association with the subnational / local dimension of innovation systems33. The local
dimension is seen as especially important for these enterprises to build upon complementarities
and to join forces. Other cases explore the complementary role of SMEs and big enterprises
within hierarchical governance structures34. Thus, direct interaction through networks and
institutional set-ups and cooperative relations are main aspect of analysis and of policy
experiences35.
28 Rodriguez and Martí (2006) discuss the importance of trust and commitment for strengthening interactive learning processes and for enabling cultural and institutional changes that favor local development. 29 Sulaiman (2006), Pulamte (2008), Abrol (2008), Chopra (2010), Oliver et al. (2011) 30 Joseph et al. (2010) 31 Aliber et al. (2006) 32 Sustz (2010), Soares and Cassiolato (2008) 33 Lemos et al. (2003), Wei and Wu (2004), Dutrénit and Fuentes (2006) and Alferov et al. (2007) 34 Dutrénit and Vera-Cruz (2003) 35 Yoguel et al. (2006), Raina (2006), Malerba and Molina (2011)
24
5. CONCLUSION
This paper attempted to provide a first general impression about the use of the innovation
systems perspective from the 1461 contributions presented in the 9 previous Globelics
conferences. Although only 44% of all these papers used in one way or another the IS
perspective the exercise revealed a very robust contribution to the innovation and development
debate.
The national and local dimensions of innovation systems were the subject of the majority of the
papers that used the framework pointing out the relevance of the local and national contexts in
the globalized economy as diversified and fruitful environments with very relevant
contributions to the issue of development.
The importance of issues related to interactive learning processes and structures that enable
these interactions (addressed by 60% of papers that use the IS framework) is also worth
emphasizing, as several papers focusing on development underlined the central importance of
learning and innovation efforts of all kinds of organizations, not only those directly linked to
R&D.
Finally, even though not addressed by most papers the important development challenges of
sustainability and social innovation start to appear more frequently as a central element of
analysis.
There is also a great potential for deepening some research lines, especially in connection with
the ample development thinking traditions that evolved in less developed countries, helping to
enrich the IS framework and policy agenda.
This paper represents a first assessment of this vast set of literature and is by far not
exhaustive. The intention is rather to set the scene for a more detailed discussion on specific
issues and research lines based on a systemic perspective.
Potential steps ahead include: (i) a closer appraisal on the connection of different types of
policies – S,T&I, industrial, social – establishing as focal point for their convergence the
pursuit of an inclusive and sustainable development process; (ii) the understanding of the role
of traditional knowledge and their connection with formalized science, which may constitute a
fruitful ground for sustainable solutions; (iii) the articulation of environmental and
social/cultural sustainability both as an end and mean for implementing policies; (iv) the
specific dynamics, sources, influences and challenges of social innovation processes, especially
re-discussing the user-producer framework considering beneficiaries as co-innovators and the
25
appropriation of key knowledge; (v) the influence of institutional settings on inclusion and
exclusion, deepening the understanding on background conditions for the expansion of
substantive freedoms;
REFERENCES36
AROCENA, R.; SUTZ, J. (2003). “Learning divides, social capital and the roles of
universities”. Paper presented at the 1st Globelics Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
CASSIOLATO, J.E.; LASTRES, H.M.M.; MACIEL, M.L. (2003). “Systems of innovation and
development - evidence from Brazil”. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
CASSIOLATO, J. E.; et al. (2005). “Innovation systems and development: what can we learn
from the Latin American experience?”, 3rd Globelics Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.
CHANG, H-J. (2002). “Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical
perspective”. London: Anthem Press, 2002.
FREEMAN, C.; PEREZ, C. (1988). “Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and
investment behaviour”, In: G. DOSI et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory,
London: Pinter, 1988.
FREEMAN, C. (1982). “Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness”. draft
paper submitted to the OECD ad hoc group on science, technology and competitiveness, Paris:
OCDE.
FREEMAN, C. (1987). “Technology Policy and Economic Performance - Lessons from
Japan”, London: Frances Pinter.
FURTADO, C. (1958). “Capital Formation and Economic Development”, in A. N.
AGARWALA; S. P. SINGH (orgs.), The Economics of Underdevelopment, Oxford, Oxford
University Press
FURTADO, C. (1961). “Desenvolvimento e subdesenvolvimento”. Rio de Janeiro: Fundo de
Cultura.
GU. S. (2003). “NIS transformation and recombination learning in China”. 1st Globelics
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 36 As a review of 10 years of Globelics’ intellectual production this paper cites a broad set of conference papers. All citations in footnotes refer to these papers. Due to space limitations the full references of these papers are not presented. All papers can be accessed through the webpage www.globelics.org, refereeing to the year of each conference.
26
HERRERA, A. (1975) “Los Determinantes Sociales de la Politica Cientifica en America
Latina”. In: J. SÁBATO, (ed.). El pensamento Latinoamericano en ciencia-tecnologia-
desarrollo- dependencia. Buenos Aires: Paidos.
HERRERA, A. (1971) “Ciencia y politica en America Latina” México: Siglo XXI.
HIRSCHMAN, A. (1958). “The strategy of economic development”. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
JOHNSON, B.; EDQUIST, C.; LUNDVALL, B.-Å. (2003) “Economic Development and the
National System of Innovation Approach”. Paper presented at the 1st Globelics Conference,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
JOSEPH, K.J. et al. (2010). “Institutions and Innovation Systems: Understanding Exclusion in
India”. 8th Globelics Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
KATZ, J. (1985). “Domestic technological innovations and dynamic comparative advantages:
further reflections on comparative case-study program”. In: Rosenberg N.; Frischtak C. (ed.),
International Technology Transfer: Concepts Measures and Comparisons, Praeger Publishers.
LASTRES, H.M.M. and CASSIOLATO, J.E. (2002) “Systems of innovation and development
from a South American perspective: a contribution to Globelics” First Globelics Workshop,
Aalborg University, 4-6 November.
________. (2005) “Innovation systems and local productive arrangements: new strategies to
promote the generation, acquisition and diffusion of knowledge”, Innovation: Management,
Policy & Practice, 7:2-3, p.172-187.
LIST, F. (1841).“Das nationale system der politischen ökonomie“. Basel: Kyklos.
LUNDVALL, B.-Å., (2007). “Innovation system research: where it came from and where it
might go”. 5th Globelics Conference, Saratov, Russia.
LUNDVALL, B-Å; et al. (2011). Innovation Systems and Economic Development. Paper
presented at the 9th Globelics Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
LUNDVALL, B.-Å., (1985). “Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction”. Aalborg,
Aalborg University Press.
LUNDVALL, B-Å (1988). Innovation as an interactive process – from user-producer
interaction to national systems of innovation. In: G Dosi, C Freeman, R Nelson, G Silverberg
and L G Soete (eds.). Technical change and economic theory, pp. 349-367. London: Pinter.
27
MOWERY, D.; OXLEY, J. (1995). “Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the role
of national innovation systems”. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19 (1): 67-93.
MUCHIE, M.; GAMMELTOFT, P.; LUNDVALL B-Å. (ed.). (2004). “Putting Africa first: the
making of african innovation systems”. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.
MYRDAL, G. (1958). “Economic theory and under-developed regions”. London: Gerald
Duckworth.
MYTELKA, L. (1993). “A role for innovation networking in the other two-thirds”. Futures,
July/August.
MYTELKA, L.K.; FARINELLI, F. (2003). “From Local Clusters to Innovation Systems”. In:
Cassiolato, J.E; Lastres, H.M.M.; Maciel, M.L. (ed.), (2003). “Systems of innovation and
development: evidence from Brazil”. London: Elgar.
NELSON, R.R. (ed.) (1992). “National innovation systems: a comparative study”. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
PEREZ, C. (1983). “Structural change and the assimilation of new technologies in the
economic and social system”. Futures 15(5): 357–75.
PRESBISCH, R. (1949). “O desenvolvimento econômico da América Latina e alguns de seus
problemas principais”, Reprinted in R. BIELSCHOWSKY (2000) (Ed.), Cinqüenta anos de
pensamento na CEPAL. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Record.
SAGASTI, F. (1978). “Ciencia y tecnologia para el desarrollo: informe comparativo central del
proyecto STPI”. Ottawa: IDRC.
SEN, A. (1999). “Development as Freedom”. US: Anchor Books.
SINGER, H. (1950). “The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries”.
American Economic Review.
SINGER, H. et al. (1970). “The Sussex manifesto: science and technology for developing
countries during the second development decade”. IDS Reprints No. 101, Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies.
TOYE, J. (1987). “Dilemmas of development - reflections on the counter revolution in
development theory and policy”. Oxford: Blackwell.